Детерминанты принятия внутреннего углеродного ценообразования в качестве стратегии управления выбросами углерода, зависящие от конкретной компании

Экологическая устойчивость и изменение климата считаются одной из актуальных проблем во всем мире и требуют комплексного подхода к их решению. Регуляторы и политики постоянно оказывают давление на бизнес-корпорации, требуя от них внедрения методов управления выбросами для контроля за углеродным следом. В ответ на это корпорации постепенно институционализируют внутреннее углеродное ценообразование (ICP) в качестве стратегии управления климатом для контроля углеродного следа в операциях и бизнес-моделях. Цель исследования — изучить специфические для каждой компании факторы, определяющие принятие ICP среди компаний, работающих в условиях развивающейся экономики. В настоящем исследовании применяется трехмерный подход, объединяющий финансовые факторы, факторы корпоративного управления и факторы, связанные с окружающей средой, которые объясняют принятие ICP. Используя панельные данные 107 фирм за 10 лет (2013–2022 гг.), в исследовании применяется бинарный логистический регрессионный анализ. Кроме того, используется обобщенный метод моментов (GMM) для контроля потенциальной эндогенности. Результаты показывают, что прибыльность, размер компании, леверидж, размер совета директоров и чувствительность к окружающей среде являются значимыми факторами, влияющими на принятие ICP среди компаний выборки. Кроме того, результаты свидетельствуют о том, что, несмотря на увеличение числа фирм, использующих ICP, средний уровень внедрения составляет всего 23%. Настоящее исследование вносит вклад в скудную литературу по практике управления выбросами углерода в развивающихся странах и описывает ряд важных последствий для менеджеров и политиков.

1. Slaper T. F., Hall T. J. The triple bottom line: What is it and how does it work. Indiana Business Review. 2011;86(1):1-8. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303051775_The_Triple_Bottom_Line_What_is_it_and_how_does_it_work

2. Shrestha P., Choi B., Luo L. Does a carbon management system mitigate the consequences of carbon emissions on firm value? An international study. Journal of International Accounting Research. 2022;21(3):147-167. DOI: 10.2308/JIAR-2021-019

3. Blackman A. Alternative pollution control policies in developing countries. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 2010;4(2):234-253. DOI: 10.1093/reep/req005

4. Ashraf S., Saleem S., Chohan A. H., Aslam Z., Raza A. Challenging strategic trends in green supply chain management. Journal of Research in Engineering and Applied Sciences. 2020;5(2):71-74. DOI: 10.46565/jreas.2020.v05i02.006

5. Fernández-Cuesta C., Castro P., Tascón M. T., Castaño F. J. The effect of environmental performance on financial debt. European evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;207:379-390. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.239

6. Cadez S., Czerny A. Climate change mitigation strategies in carbon-intensive firms. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;112(Pt.5):4132-4143. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.099

7. Bento N., Gianfrate G. Determinants of internal carbon pricing. Energy Policy. 2020;143:111499. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111499

8. Barnett M., Brock W., Hansen L. P. Pricing uncertainty induced by climate change. The Review of Financial Studies. 2020;33(3):1024-1066. DOI: 10.1093/rfs/hhz144

9. Bartlett N., Cushing H., Law S. Putting a price on carbon: Integrating climate risk into business planning. New York, NY: CDP North America, Inc.; 2017. 52 p. URL: https://www.actu-environnement.com/media/pdf/news-29828-prix-carbone-entreprises-cdp.pdf

10. Ben-Amar W., Gomes M., Khursheed H., Marsat S. Climate change exposure and internal carbon pricing adoption. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2022;31(7):2854-2870. DOI: 10.1002/bse.3051

11. Zhu B., Xu C., Wang P. Zhang L. How does internal carbon pricing affect corporate environmental performance? Journal of Business Research. 2022;145:65-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.071

12. Matsumura E. M., Prakash R., Vera-Muñoz S. C. Firm-value effects of carbon emissions and carbon disclosures. The Accounting Review. 2014;89(2):695-724. DOI: 10.2308/accr-50629

13. Chouaibi S., Chouaibi J., Rossi M. ESG and corporate financial performance: The mediating role of green innovation: UK common law versus Germany civil law. EuroMed Journal of Business. 2022;17(1):46-71. DOI: 10.1108/EMJB-09-2020-0101

14. Chen L. H., Silva Gao L. The pricing of climate risk. Journal of Financial and Economic Practice. 2012;12(2):115-131.

15. Li Y., Eddie I., Liu J. Carbon emissions and the cost of capital: Australian evidence. Review of Accounting and Finance. 2014;13(4):400-420. DOI: 10.1108/RAF-08-2012-0074

16. Kumar P., Firoz M. How does capital market respond to Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) announcements in India: An event study methodology. Managerial Finance. 2019;45(7):950-965. DOI: 10.1108/MF-12-2018-0635

17. Berthelot S., Robert A.-M. Climate change disclosures: An examination of Canadian oil and gas firms. Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting. 2011;5(1/2):106-123. DOI: 10.22164/isea.v5i2.61

18. Desai R., Raval A., Baser N., Desai J. Impact of carbon emission on financial performance: Empirical evidence from India. South Asian Journal of Business Studies. 2022;11(4):450-470. DOI: 10.1108/SAJBS-10-2020-0384

19. Mann W. Internal carbon pricing at Garanti Bank. Yale Center for Business and the Environment. Oct. 01, 2018. URL: https://cbey.yale.edu/our-stories/internal-carbon-pricing-at-garanti-bank

20. Ethan A., Alhasan B., Luke E. Internal carbon pricing, policy framework and case studies. Yale Center for Business and the Environment. 2019. URL: https://cbey.yale.edu/programs/internal-carbon-pricing-policy-framework-and-case-studies

21. Ma J., Kuo J. Environmental self-regulation for sustainable development: Can internal carbon pricing enhance financial performance? Business Strategy and the Environment. 2021;30(8):3517-3527. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2817

22. Jadiyappa N., Krishnankutty R. Do stock markets value green operations? Evidence from India. International Journal of Managerial Finance. 2022;18(4):661-676. DOI: 10.1108/IJMF-06-2021-0305

23. Ashrafi M. Nonlinear relationship between institutional investors’ ownership and capital structure: Evidence from Iranian firms. International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting. 2019;11(1):1-19. DOI: 10.1504/IJMFA.2019.097827

24. Chithambo L., Tauringana V. Company specific determinants of greenhouse gases disclosures. Journal of Applied Accounting Research. 2014;15(3):323-338. DOI: 10.1108/JAAR-11-2013-0087

25. Halimah N. P., Yanto H. Determinant of carbon emission disclosure at mining companies listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange. KnE Social Sciences. 2018:127-141. DOI: 10.18502/kss.v3i10.3124

26. Griffin P. A., Lont D. H., Sun E. Y. The relevance to investors of greenhouse gas emission disclosures. Contemporary Accounting Research. 2017;34(2):1265-1297. DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12298

27. Nguyen N. P., Adomako S. Stakeholder pressure for eco-friendly practices, international orientation, and ecoinnovation: A study of small and medium-sized enterprises in Vietnam. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2022;29(1):79-88. DOI: 10.1002/csr.2185

28. Orsato R. J., de Campos J. G.F., Barakat S. R., Nicolletti M., Monzoni M. Why join a carbon club? A study of the banks participating in the Brazilian “Business for Climate Platform”. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015;96:387-396. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.007

29. De Villiers C., Naiker V., van Staden C. J. The effect of board characteristics on firm environmental performance. Journal of Management. 2011;37(6):1636-1663. DOI: 10.1177/0149206311411506

30. Allam B. S. The impact of board characteristics and ownership identity on agency costs and firm performance: UK evidence. Corporate Governance. 2018;18(6):1147-1176. DOI: 10.1108/CG-09-2016-0184

31. Amran A., Lee S. P., Devi S. S. The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2014;23(4):217-235. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1767

32. Backman A., Sjögren K., Lindkvist M., Lövheim H., Edvardsson D. Characteristics of highly rated leadership in nursing homes using item response theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2017;73(12):2903-2913. DOI: 10.1111/jan.13353

33. Peters G. F., Romi A. M. Does the voluntary adoption of corporate governance mechanisms improve environmental risk disclosures? Evidence from greenhouse gas emission accounting. Journal of Business Ethics. 2013;125(4):637-666. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-013-1886-9

34. Byrd J. W., Cooperman E. S., Hickman K. Capital budgeting and climate change: Does corporate internal carbon pricing reduce CO 2 emissions. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2020. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3575769

35. Freedman M., Jaggi B. Global warming, commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, and accounting disclosures by the largest global public firms from polluting industries. The International Journal of Accounting. 2005;40(3):215-232. DOI: 10.1016/j.intacc.2005.06.004

36. Yang R., Long R. Analysis of the influencing factors of the public willingness to participate in public bicycle projects and intervention strategies — A case study of Jiangsu Province, China. Sustainability. 2016;8(4):349. DOI: 10.3390/su8040349

37. Akbaş H. E., Canikli S. Determinants of voluntary greenhouse gas emission disclosure: An empirical investigation on Turkish firms. Sustainability. 2019;11(1):107. DOI: 10.3390/su11010107

38. Midi H., Sarkar S. K., Rana S. Collinearity diagnostics of binary logistic regression model. Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics. 2010;13(3):253-267. DOI: 10.1080/09720502.2010.10700699

39. Arellano M., Bond S. Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies. 1991;58(2):277-297. DOI: 10.2307/2297968

40. Blundell R., Bond S. R. Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics. 1998;87(1):115-143. DOI: 10.1016/S 0304-4076(98)00009-8

41. Nguyen T., Locke S., Reddy K. Does boardroom gender diversity matter? Evidence from a transitional economy. International Review of Economics & Finance. 2015;37:184-202. DOI: 10.1016/j.iref.2014.11.022

42. Veeravel V., Panda P., Balakrishnan A. Role of institutional investors in reviving loss-making firms: Evidence from India. Managerial Finance. 2023;49(12):1865-1885. DOI: 10.1108/MF-04-2023-0235

43. Gujarati D. N., Porter D. C. Basic econometrics. 4 th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co.; 2003. 1002 p.

44. Roberts M. R., Whited T. M. Endogeneity in empirical corporate finance 1 . In: Constantinides G. M., Harris M., Stulz R. M., eds. Handbook of the economics of finance: Corporate finance. Amsterdam: North Holland; 2013;2A:493-572. DOI: 10.1016/B 978-0-44-453594-8.00007-0

45. Pucheta-Martínez M.C., Chiva-Ortells C. Institutional shareholding as a corporate governance mechanism that drives Chief Executive Officer pay. BRQ Business Research Quarterly. 2020;23(3):217-233. DOI: 10.1177/2340944420941462

46. Datt R., Luo L., Tang Q., Mallik G. An international study of determinants of voluntary carbon assurance. Journal of International Accounting Research. 2018;17(3):1-20. DOI: 10.2308/jiar-52221

47. Kalu J. U., Buang A., Aliagha G. U. Determinants of voluntary carbon disclosure in the corporate real estate sector of Malaysia. Journal of Environmental Management. 2016;182:519-524. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.011

48. Prado-Lorenzo J.M., Rodríguez-Domínguez L., Gallego-Álvarez I., García-Sánchez I. Factors influencing the disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions in companies world-wide. Management Decision. 2009;47(7):1133-1157. DOI: 10.1108/00251740910978340

49. Kumar P., Firoz M. Impact of carbon emissions on cost of debt-evidence from India. Managerial Finance. 2018;44(12):1401-1417. DOI: 10.1108/MF-03-2018-0108

50. Fedorova E. A., Komletsova V. G., Tregubova M. K., Maksimova A. Y., Emel’yanova V. D. The impact of corporate governance on the capital structure of domestic companies. Finance: Theory and Practice. 2022;26(2):25-37. DOI: 10.26794/2587-5671-2022-26-2-25-37

51. Qureshi M. A., Kirkerud S., Theresa K., Ahsan T. The impact of sustainability (environmental, social, and governance) disclosure and board diversity on firm value: The moderating role of industry sensitivity. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2020;29(3):1199-1214. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2427

52. Kazakova N.A ., Kogdenko V. G. Monitoring the sustainable development of the electronic industry. Finance: Theory and Practice. 2023;27(6):185-198. DOI: 10.26794/2587-5671-2023-27-6-185-198